That laugh out of the way, you might take a look at the Lives of the Saints rather than the writings. I think they would support your position pretty well. I don't have time and I have a heck of a time implanting images in here, but there are plenty of pictures out there of Orthodox priests blessing troops, if someone had the desire to look them up.

You're right Peter; I should do the Orthodox thing and chuck my reason at the door. The mind was given by God for the sole purpose of searching the writings of the Saints.

You do realize I never counseled you to do that? What I DID ask you to do is to stop parading your own reasoning around as though it were the Orthodox teaching on the subject, especially considering that, IIRC, you're still a catechumen or newbie Orthodox who should be investing more energy into learning what the faith teaches rather than arguing as if you already know everything. Take ownership of your reasoning and call it what it is: your own opinions.

You're right Peter; I should do the Orthodox thing and chuck my reason at the door. The mind was given by God for the sole purpose of searching the writings of the Saints.

You do realize I never counseled you to do that? What I DID ask you to do is to stop parading your own reasoning around as though it were the Orthodox teaching on the subject, especially considering that, IIRC, you're still a catechumen or newbie Orthodox who should be investing more energy into learning what the faith teaches rather than arguing as if you already know everything. Take ownership of your reasoning and call it what it is: your own opinions.

I suppose someone should have told St. Ambrose to shut up, then, when he went to the church, where the election to replace Auxentius, Bishop of Milan, was telling place, to prevent an uproar. It was during that speech that the unbaptized Ambrose was elected bishop. I suppose the people were wrong to call for his ordination, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose the friend who's house he was hiding in after this election was wrong to have given him up, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose those bishops who ordained him to the episcopate were wrong to have done so when it was just a week prior that he had been yet unbaptized.

So, how long exactly do I need to be Orthodox before I can stop learning and begin pontificating? Is there a time-table, or should I speak with a great and holy elder to know that I have been Orthodox long enough?

You're right Peter; I should do the Orthodox thing and chuck my reason at the door. The mind was given by God for the sole purpose of searching the writings of the Saints.

You do realize I never counseled you to do that? What I DID ask you to do is to stop parading your own reasoning around as though it were the Orthodox teaching on the subject, especially considering that, IIRC, you're still a catechumen or newbie Orthodox who should be investing more energy into learning what the faith teaches rather than arguing as if you already know everything. Take ownership of your reasoning and call it what it is: your own opinions.

I suppose someone should have told St. Ambrose to shut up, then, when he went to the church, where the election to replace Auxentius, Bishop of Milan, was telling place, to prevent an uproar. It was during that speech that the unbaptized Ambrose was elected bishop. I suppose the people were wrong to call for his ordination, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose the friend who's house he was hiding in after this election was wrong to have given him up, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose those bishops who ordained him to the episcopate were wrong to have done so when it was just a week prior that he had been yet unbaptized.

You're right Peter; I should do the Orthodox thing and chuck my reason at the door. The mind was given by God for the sole purpose of searching the writings of the Saints.

You do realize I never counseled you to do that? What I DID ask you to do is to stop parading your own reasoning around as though it were the Orthodox teaching on the subject, especially considering that, IIRC, you're still a catechumen or newbie Orthodox who should be investing more energy into learning what the faith teaches rather than arguing as if you already know everything. Take ownership of your reasoning and call it what it is: your own opinions.

I suppose someone should have told St. Ambrose to shut up, then, when he went to the church, where the election to replace Auxentius, Bishop of Milan, was telling place, to prevent an uproar. It was during that speech that the unbaptized Ambrose was elected bishop. I suppose the people were wrong to call for his ordination, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose the friend who's house he was hiding in after this election was wrong to have given him up, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose those bishops who ordained him to the episcopate were wrong to have done so when it was just a week prior that he had been yet unbaptized.

You're right Peter; I should do the Orthodox thing and chuck my reason at the door. The mind was given by God for the sole purpose of searching the writings of the Saints.

You do realize I never counseled you to do that? What I DID ask you to do is to stop parading your own reasoning around as though it were the Orthodox teaching on the subject, especially considering that, IIRC, you're still a catechumen or newbie Orthodox who should be investing more energy into learning what the faith teaches rather than arguing as if you already know everything. Take ownership of your reasoning and call it what it is: your own opinions.

I suppose someone should have told St. Ambrose to shut up, then, when he went to the church, where the election to replace Auxentius, Bishop of Milan, was telling place, to prevent an uproar. It was during that speech that the unbaptized Ambrose was elected bishop. I suppose the people were wrong to call for his ordination, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose the friend who's house he was hiding in after this election was wrong to have given him up, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose those bishops who ordained him to the episcopate were wrong to have done so when it was just a week prior that he had been yet unbaptized.

Did St. Ambrose appoint himself bishop?

Is this really a germane question?

Yes, it is. You cited the example of St. Ambrose's election to the episcopacy as precedent to justify your self-appointed authority on this thread, so yes, my question is germane to our debate. Only if St. Ambrose appointed himself bishop is his example analogous to your defense of your authority to teach the Orthodox faith even though you're not yet Orthodox.

You're right Peter; I should do the Orthodox thing and chuck my reason at the door. The mind was given by God for the sole purpose of searching the writings of the Saints.

You do realize I never counseled you to do that? What I DID ask you to do is to stop parading your own reasoning around as though it were the Orthodox teaching on the subject, especially considering that, IIRC, you're still a catechumen or newbie Orthodox who should be investing more energy into learning what the faith teaches rather than arguing as if you already know everything. Take ownership of your reasoning and call it what it is: your own opinions.

I suppose someone should have told St. Ambrose to shut up, then, when he went to the church, where the election to replace Auxentius, Bishop of Milan, was telling place, to prevent an uproar. It was during that speech that the unbaptized Ambrose was elected bishop. I suppose the people were wrong to call for his ordination, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose the friend who's house he was hiding in after this election was wrong to have given him up, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose those bishops who ordained him to the episcopate were wrong to have done so when it was just a week prior that he had been yet unbaptized.

Did St. Ambrose appoint himself bishop?

Is this really a germane question?

Yes, it is. You cited the example of St. Ambrose's election to the episcopacy as precedent to justify your self-appointed authority on this thread, so yes, my question is germane to our debate. Only if St. Ambrose appointed himself bishop is his example analogous to your defense of your authority to teach the Orthodox faith even though you're not yet Orthodox.

No, I cited St. Ambrose going to a church to give a speech during the election of the replacement for the bishop of Milan, as similar to this. No one appointed St. Ambrose to go give a speech.

You're right Peter; I should do the Orthodox thing and chuck my reason at the door. The mind was given by God for the sole purpose of searching the writings of the Saints.

You do realize I never counseled you to do that? What I DID ask you to do is to stop parading your own reasoning around as though it were the Orthodox teaching on the subject, especially considering that, IIRC, you're still a catechumen or newbie Orthodox who should be investing more energy into learning what the faith teaches rather than arguing as if you already know everything. Take ownership of your reasoning and call it what it is: your own opinions.

I suppose someone should have told St. Ambrose to shut up, then, when he went to the church, where the election to replace Auxentius, Bishop of Milan, was telling place, to prevent an uproar. It was during that speech that the unbaptized Ambrose was elected bishop. I suppose the people were wrong to call for his ordination, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose the friend who's house he was hiding in after this election was wrong to have given him up, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose those bishops who ordained him to the episcopate were wrong to have done so when it was just a week prior that he had been yet unbaptized.

Did St. Ambrose appoint himself bishop?

Is this really a germane question?

Yes, it is. You cited the example of St. Ambrose's election to the episcopacy as precedent to justify your self-appointed authority on this thread, so yes, my question is germane to our debate. Only if St. Ambrose appointed himself bishop is his example analogous to your defense of your authority to teach the Orthodox faith even though you're not yet Orthodox.

No, I cited St. Ambrose going to a church to give a speech during the election of the replacement for the bishop of Milan, as similar to this. No one appointed St. Ambrose to go give a speech.

But, as governor of the province of Milan, public speeches were part of his job description. Whereas it may indeed be true that St. Ambrose appointed himself to give a speech at the assembly that eventually elected him bishop, it is also true that he most likely gave the speech because he felt that his role as provincial governor placed on him the demand that he do so. Are you a civic authority as St. Ambrose was when he gave his speech? Does your role on this forum demand that you pontificate?

You're right Peter; I should do the Orthodox thing and chuck my reason at the door. The mind was given by God for the sole purpose of searching the writings of the Saints.

You do realize I never counseled you to do that? What I DID ask you to do is to stop parading your own reasoning around as though it were the Orthodox teaching on the subject, especially considering that, IIRC, you're still a catechumen or newbie Orthodox who should be investing more energy into learning what the faith teaches rather than arguing as if you already know everything. Take ownership of your reasoning and call it what it is: your own opinions.

I suppose someone should have told St. Ambrose to shut up, then, when he went to the church, where the election to replace Auxentius, Bishop of Milan, was telling place, to prevent an uproar. It was during that speech that the unbaptized Ambrose was elected bishop. I suppose the people were wrong to call for his ordination, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose the friend who's house he was hiding in after this election was wrong to have given him up, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose those bishops who ordained him to the episcopate were wrong to have done so when it was just a week prior that he had been yet unbaptized.

Did St. Ambrose appoint himself bishop?

Is this really a germane question?

Yes, it is. You cited the example of St. Ambrose's election to the episcopacy as precedent to justify your self-appointed authority on this thread, so yes, my question is germane to our debate. Only if St. Ambrose appointed himself bishop is his example analogous to your defense of your authority to teach the Orthodox faith even though you're not yet Orthodox.

No, I cited St. Ambrose going to a church to give a speech during the election of the replacement for the bishop of Milan, as similar to this. No one appointed St. Ambrose to go give a speech.

But, as governor of the province of Milan, public speeches were part of his job description. Whereas it may indeed be true that St. Ambrose appointed himself to give a speech at the assembly that eventually elected him bishop, it is also true that he most likely gave the speech because he felt that his role as provincial governor placed on him the demand that he do so. Are you a civic authority as St. Ambrose was when he gave his speech? Does your role on this forum demand that you pontificate?

So the Premier of China has a right to give speeches in Orthodox contexts, but I should refrain from giving an opinion?

You're right Peter; I should do the Orthodox thing and chuck my reason at the door. The mind was given by God for the sole purpose of searching the writings of the Saints.

You do realize I never counseled you to do that? What I DID ask you to do is to stop parading your own reasoning around as though it were the Orthodox teaching on the subject, especially considering that, IIRC, you're still a catechumen or newbie Orthodox who should be investing more energy into learning what the faith teaches rather than arguing as if you already know everything. Take ownership of your reasoning and call it what it is: your own opinions.

I suppose someone should have told St. Ambrose to shut up, then, when he went to the church, where the election to replace Auxentius, Bishop of Milan, was telling place, to prevent an uproar. It was during that speech that the unbaptized Ambrose was elected bishop. I suppose the people were wrong to call for his ordination, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose the friend who's house he was hiding in after this election was wrong to have given him up, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose those bishops who ordained him to the episcopate were wrong to have done so when it was just a week prior that he had been yet unbaptized.

Did St. Ambrose appoint himself bishop?

Is this really a germane question?

Yes, it is. You cited the example of St. Ambrose's election to the episcopacy as precedent to justify your self-appointed authority on this thread, so yes, my question is germane to our debate. Only if St. Ambrose appointed himself bishop is his example analogous to your defense of your authority to teach the Orthodox faith even though you're not yet Orthodox.

No, I cited St. Ambrose going to a church to give a speech during the election of the replacement for the bishop of Milan, as similar to this. No one appointed St. Ambrose to go give a speech.

But, as governor of the province of Milan, public speeches were part of his job description. Whereas it may indeed be true that St. Ambrose appointed himself to give a speech at the assembly that eventually elected him bishop, it is also true that he most likely gave the speech because he felt that his role as provincial governor placed on him the demand that he do so. Are you a civic authority as St. Ambrose was when he gave his speech? Does your role on this forum demand that you pontificate?

So the Premier of China has a right to give speeches in Orthodox contexts, but I should refrain from giving an opinion?

No, I never said you should refrain from giving your opinion. Feel free to share your opinions as much as you want, but make sure you identify those opinions you share as nothing more than your personal opinions. The only thing I ask you to stop doing is passing your personal opinions off as the teachings of the Church.

You're right Peter; I should do the Orthodox thing and chuck my reason at the door. The mind was given by God for the sole purpose of searching the writings of the Saints.

You do realize I never counseled you to do that? What I DID ask you to do is to stop parading your own reasoning around as though it were the Orthodox teaching on the subject, especially considering that, IIRC, you're still a catechumen or newbie Orthodox who should be investing more energy into learning what the faith teaches rather than arguing as if you already know everything. Take ownership of your reasoning and call it what it is: your own opinions.

I suppose someone should have told St. Ambrose to shut up, then, when he went to the church, where the election to replace Auxentius, Bishop of Milan, was telling place, to prevent an uproar. It was during that speech that the unbaptized Ambrose was elected bishop. I suppose the people were wrong to call for his ordination, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose the friend who's house he was hiding in after this election was wrong to have given him up, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose those bishops who ordained him to the episcopate were wrong to have done so when it was just a week prior that he had been yet unbaptized.

Did St. Ambrose appoint himself bishop?

Is this really a germane question?

Yes, it is. You cited the example of St. Ambrose's election to the episcopacy as precedent to justify your self-appointed authority on this thread, so yes, my question is germane to our debate. Only if St. Ambrose appointed himself bishop is his example analogous to your defense of your authority to teach the Orthodox faith even though you're not yet Orthodox.

No, I cited St. Ambrose going to a church to give a speech during the election of the replacement for the bishop of Milan, as similar to this. No one appointed St. Ambrose to go give a speech.

But, as governor of the province of Milan, public speeches were part of his job description. Whereas it may indeed be true that St. Ambrose appointed himself to give a speech at the assembly that eventually elected him bishop, it is also true that he most likely gave the speech because he felt that his role as provincial governor placed on him the demand that he do so. Are you a civic authority as St. Ambrose was when he gave his speech? Does your role on this forum demand that you pontificate?

So the Premier of China has a right to give speeches in Orthodox contexts, but I should refrain from giving an opinion?

No, I never said you should refrain from giving your opinion. Feel free to share your opinions as much as you want, but make sure you identify those opinions you share as nothing more than your personal opinions. The only thing I ask you to stop doing is passing your personal opinions off as the teachings of the Church.

When did I pass my opinion off as the Church's? Unless I state "Orthodoxy teaches..." or "The Orthodox believe..." why should someone assume I am speaking other than as a private individual?

You're right Peter; I should do the Orthodox thing and chuck my reason at the door. The mind was given by God for the sole purpose of searching the writings of the Saints.

You do realize I never counseled you to do that? What I DID ask you to do is to stop parading your own reasoning around as though it were the Orthodox teaching on the subject, especially considering that, IIRC, you're still a catechumen or newbie Orthodox who should be investing more energy into learning what the faith teaches rather than arguing as if you already know everything. Take ownership of your reasoning and call it what it is: your own opinions.

I suppose someone should have told St. Ambrose to shut up, then, when he went to the church, where the election to replace Auxentius, Bishop of Milan, was telling place, to prevent an uproar. It was during that speech that the unbaptized Ambrose was elected bishop. I suppose the people were wrong to call for his ordination, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose the friend who's house he was hiding in after this election was wrong to have given him up, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose those bishops who ordained him to the episcopate were wrong to have done so when it was just a week prior that he had been yet unbaptized.

Did St. Ambrose appoint himself bishop?

Is this really a germane question?

Yes, it is. You cited the example of St. Ambrose's election to the episcopacy as precedent to justify your self-appointed authority on this thread, so yes, my question is germane to our debate. Only if St. Ambrose appointed himself bishop is his example analogous to your defense of your authority to teach the Orthodox faith even though you're not yet Orthodox.

No, I cited St. Ambrose going to a church to give a speech during the election of the replacement for the bishop of Milan, as similar to this. No one appointed St. Ambrose to go give a speech.

But, as governor of the province of Milan, public speeches were part of his job description. Whereas it may indeed be true that St. Ambrose appointed himself to give a speech at the assembly that eventually elected him bishop, it is also true that he most likely gave the speech because he felt that his role as provincial governor placed on him the demand that he do so. Are you a civic authority as St. Ambrose was when he gave his speech? Does your role on this forum demand that you pontificate?

So the Premier of China has a right to give speeches in Orthodox contexts, but I should refrain from giving an opinion?

No, I never said you should refrain from giving your opinion. Feel free to share your opinions as much as you want, but make sure you identify those opinions you share as nothing more than your personal opinions. The only thing I ask you to stop doing is passing your personal opinions off as the teachings of the Church.

When did I pass my opinion off as the Church's? Unless I state "Orthodoxy teaches..." or "The Orthodox believe..." why should someone assume I am speaking other than as a private individual?

Someone asked if it's possible to kill in war and still be Orthodox. You said, "Absolutely," and went on to defend this assertion with your interpretation of Scripture. When I challenged you on that, you pointed out the many Orthodox warrior-saints as evidence of the "Orthodoxy" of your position. For one, I read the question as requesting a definitive Orthodox response. And for two, you said nothing in your response to indicate that you were giving anything different and made a clear attempt to defend the "Orthodoxy" of your point of view when questioned. Therefore, the clear implication is that you were passing off your personal interpretation of Scripture and your own logic as representative of the Orthodox Tradition.

I also think that your earlier aggressive pontification on this thread bears that out even more.

You're right Peter; I should do the Orthodox thing and chuck my reason at the door. The mind was given by God for the sole purpose of searching the writings of the Saints.

You do realize I never counseled you to do that? What I DID ask you to do is to stop parading your own reasoning around as though it were the Orthodox teaching on the subject, especially considering that, IIRC, you're still a catechumen or newbie Orthodox who should be investing more energy into learning what the faith teaches rather than arguing as if you already know everything. Take ownership of your reasoning and call it what it is: your own opinions.

I suppose someone should have told St. Ambrose to shut up, then, when he went to the church, where the election to replace Auxentius, Bishop of Milan, was telling place, to prevent an uproar. It was during that speech that the unbaptized Ambrose was elected bishop. I suppose the people were wrong to call for his ordination, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose the friend who's house he was hiding in after this election was wrong to have given him up, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose those bishops who ordained him to the episcopate were wrong to have done so when it was just a week prior that he had been yet unbaptized.

Did St. Ambrose appoint himself bishop?

Is this really a germane question?

Yes, it is. You cited the example of St. Ambrose's election to the episcopacy as precedent to justify your self-appointed authority on this thread, so yes, my question is germane to our debate. Only if St. Ambrose appointed himself bishop is his example analogous to your defense of your authority to teach the Orthodox faith even though you're not yet Orthodox.

No, I cited St. Ambrose going to a church to give a speech during the election of the replacement for the bishop of Milan, as similar to this. No one appointed St. Ambrose to go give a speech.

But, as governor of the province of Milan, public speeches were part of his job description. Whereas it may indeed be true that St. Ambrose appointed himself to give a speech at the assembly that eventually elected him bishop, it is also true that he most likely gave the speech because he felt that his role as provincial governor placed on him the demand that he do so. Are you a civic authority as St. Ambrose was when he gave his speech? Does your role on this forum demand that you pontificate?

So the Premier of China has a right to give speeches in Orthodox contexts, but I should refrain from giving an opinion?

No, I never said you should refrain from giving your opinion. Feel free to share your opinions as much as you want, but make sure you identify those opinions you share as nothing more than your personal opinions. The only thing I ask you to stop doing is passing your personal opinions off as the teachings of the Church.

When did I pass my opinion off as the Church's? Unless I state "Orthodoxy teaches..." or "The Orthodox believe..." why should someone assume I am speaking other than as a private individual?

Someone asked if it's possible to kill in war and still be Orthodox. You said, "Absolutely," and went on to defend this assertion with your interpretation of Scripture. When I challenged you on that, you pointed out the many Orthodox warrior-saints as evidence of the "Orthodoxy" of your position. For one, I read the question as requesting a definitive Orthodox response. And for two, you said nothing in your response to indicate that you were giving anything different and made a clear attempt to defend the "Orthodoxy" of your point of view when questioned. Therefore, the clear implication is that you were passing off your personal interpretation of Scripture and your own logic as representative of the Orthodox Tradition.

I also think that your earlier aggressive pontification on this thread bears that out even more.

Alright, time to settle this once and for all. Would an Orthodox Saint be considered Orthodox?

St. Olaf was killed in battle...so up until the event of his very death he was engaged in combat. St. Olaf is an Orthodox Saint.If an Orthodox Saint is Orthodox, then someone must be able to take part in war and still be Orthodox, even if they are unable to attend confession afterwards due to an unfortunate case of death.

You're right Peter; I should do the Orthodox thing and chuck my reason at the door. The mind was given by God for the sole purpose of searching the writings of the Saints.

You do realize I never counseled you to do that? What I DID ask you to do is to stop parading your own reasoning around as though it were the Orthodox teaching on the subject, especially considering that, IIRC, you're still a catechumen or newbie Orthodox who should be investing more energy into learning what the faith teaches rather than arguing as if you already know everything. Take ownership of your reasoning and call it what it is: your own opinions.

I suppose someone should have told St. Ambrose to shut up, then, when he went to the church, where the election to replace Auxentius, Bishop of Milan, was telling place, to prevent an uproar. It was during that speech that the unbaptized Ambrose was elected bishop. I suppose the people were wrong to call for his ordination, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose the friend who's house he was hiding in after this election was wrong to have given him up, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose those bishops who ordained him to the episcopate were wrong to have done so when it was just a week prior that he had been yet unbaptized.

Did St. Ambrose appoint himself bishop?

Is this really a germane question?

Yes, it is. You cited the example of St. Ambrose's election to the episcopacy as precedent to justify your self-appointed authority on this thread, so yes, my question is germane to our debate. Only if St. Ambrose appointed himself bishop is his example analogous to your defense of your authority to teach the Orthodox faith even though you're not yet Orthodox.

No, I cited St. Ambrose going to a church to give a speech during the election of the replacement for the bishop of Milan, as similar to this. No one appointed St. Ambrose to go give a speech.

But, as governor of the province of Milan, public speeches were part of his job description. Whereas it may indeed be true that St. Ambrose appointed himself to give a speech at the assembly that eventually elected him bishop, it is also true that he most likely gave the speech because he felt that his role as provincial governor placed on him the demand that he do so. Are you a civic authority as St. Ambrose was when he gave his speech? Does your role on this forum demand that you pontificate?

So the Premier of China has a right to give speeches in Orthodox contexts, but I should refrain from giving an opinion?

No, I never said you should refrain from giving your opinion. Feel free to share your opinions as much as you want, but make sure you identify those opinions you share as nothing more than your personal opinions. The only thing I ask you to stop doing is passing your personal opinions off as the teachings of the Church.

When did I pass my opinion off as the Church's? Unless I state "Orthodoxy teaches..." or "The Orthodox believe..." why should someone assume I am speaking other than as a private individual?

Someone asked if it's possible to kill in war and still be Orthodox. You said, "Absolutely," and went on to defend this assertion with your interpretation of Scripture. When I challenged you on that, you pointed out the many Orthodox warrior-saints as evidence of the "Orthodoxy" of your position. For one, I read the question as requesting a definitive Orthodox response. And for two, you said nothing in your response to indicate that you were giving anything different and made a clear attempt to defend the "Orthodoxy" of your point of view when questioned. Therefore, the clear implication is that you were passing off your personal interpretation of Scripture and your own logic as representative of the Orthodox Tradition.

I also think that your earlier aggressive pontification on this thread bears that out even more.

Alright, time to settle this once and for all. Would an Orthodox Saint be considered Orthodox?

St. Olaf was killed in battle...so up until the event of his very death he was engaged in combat. St. Olaf is an Orthodox Saint.If an Orthodox Saint is Orthodox, then someone must be able to take part in war and still be Orthodox, even if they are unable to attend confession afterwards due to an unfortunate case of death.

You're right Peter; I should do the Orthodox thing and chuck my reason at the door. The mind was given by God for the sole purpose of searching the writings of the Saints.

You do realize I never counseled you to do that? What I DID ask you to do is to stop parading your own reasoning around as though it were the Orthodox teaching on the subject, especially considering that, IIRC, you're still a catechumen or newbie Orthodox who should be investing more energy into learning what the faith teaches rather than arguing as if you already know everything. Take ownership of your reasoning and call it what it is: your own opinions.

I suppose someone should have told St. Ambrose to shut up, then, when he went to the church, where the election to replace Auxentius, Bishop of Milan, was telling place, to prevent an uproar. It was during that speech that the unbaptized Ambrose was elected bishop. I suppose the people were wrong to call for his ordination, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose the friend who's house he was hiding in after this election was wrong to have given him up, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose those bishops who ordained him to the episcopate were wrong to have done so when it was just a week prior that he had been yet unbaptized.

Did St. Ambrose appoint himself bishop?

Is this really a germane question?

Yes, it is. You cited the example of St. Ambrose's election to the episcopacy as precedent to justify your self-appointed authority on this thread, so yes, my question is germane to our debate. Only if St. Ambrose appointed himself bishop is his example analogous to your defense of your authority to teach the Orthodox faith even though you're not yet Orthodox.

No, I cited St. Ambrose going to a church to give a speech during the election of the replacement for the bishop of Milan, as similar to this. No one appointed St. Ambrose to go give a speech.

But, as governor of the province of Milan, public speeches were part of his job description. Whereas it may indeed be true that St. Ambrose appointed himself to give a speech at the assembly that eventually elected him bishop, it is also true that he most likely gave the speech because he felt that his role as provincial governor placed on him the demand that he do so. Are you a civic authority as St. Ambrose was when he gave his speech? Does your role on this forum demand that you pontificate?

So the Premier of China has a right to give speeches in Orthodox contexts, but I should refrain from giving an opinion?

No, I never said you should refrain from giving your opinion. Feel free to share your opinions as much as you want, but make sure you identify those opinions you share as nothing more than your personal opinions. The only thing I ask you to stop doing is passing your personal opinions off as the teachings of the Church.

When did I pass my opinion off as the Church's? Unless I state "Orthodoxy teaches..." or "The Orthodox believe..." why should someone assume I am speaking other than as a private individual?

Someone asked if it's possible to kill in war and still be Orthodox. You said, "Absolutely," and went on to defend this assertion with your interpretation of Scripture. When I challenged you on that, you pointed out the many Orthodox warrior-saints as evidence of the "Orthodoxy" of your position. For one, I read the question as requesting a definitive Orthodox response. And for two, you said nothing in your response to indicate that you were giving anything different and made a clear attempt to defend the "Orthodoxy" of your point of view when questioned. Therefore, the clear implication is that you were passing off your personal interpretation of Scripture and your own logic as representative of the Orthodox Tradition.

I also think that your earlier aggressive pontification on this thread bears that out even more.

Alright, time to settle this once and for all. Would an Orthodox Saint be considered Orthodox?

St. Olaf was killed in battle...so up until the event of his very death he was engaged in combat. St. Olaf is an Orthodox Saint.If an Orthodox Saint is Orthodox, then someone must be able to take part in war and still be Orthodox, even if they are unable to attend confession afterwards due to an unfortunate case of death.

Or do you deny St. Olaf's Sainthood?

Are you replying to me? If so, you're barking at the wrong mailman.

I was. I'm barking because your entire argument is that since James is not a Saint or a Holy Father his opinion does not carry any weight. Well, his opinion not only stands to reason, but it also is backed up by at least one example which I have provided.

So I put it to you, which Holy Father blocked St. Olaf's canonization?

Which Holy Father renounced the Battle of the Milvian Bridge? When God spoke to St. Constantine, you might note that He wasn't saying "put away your sword" but "in this sign you shall conquer".

James brought up the Old Testament. You asked which Holy Father he could quote. How about Moses? You know, a man who spoke to God in person. God didn't tell the Israelites to go into Canaan and set up a drum circle, He not only allowed them to fight their enemies, but He often aided them or dispensed battle tactics. When Samson was about to die, God gave him his strength back, not so that he could endure his torment, but so that he could KILL THOUSANDS OF THE ENEMY.

I think there are plenty of examples that back up James' assertion. So, do you have any writings from the Holy Fathers that state clearly that war is NEVER allowed? I would also be interested to know how they explained the examples from the Lives of the Saints and from the Holy Scripture.

You're right Peter; I should do the Orthodox thing and chuck my reason at the door. The mind was given by God for the sole purpose of searching the writings of the Saints.

You do realize I never counseled you to do that? What I DID ask you to do is to stop parading your own reasoning around as though it were the Orthodox teaching on the subject, especially considering that, IIRC, you're still a catechumen or newbie Orthodox who should be investing more energy into learning what the faith teaches rather than arguing as if you already know everything. Take ownership of your reasoning and call it what it is: your own opinions.

I suppose someone should have told St. Ambrose to shut up, then, when he went to the church, where the election to replace Auxentius, Bishop of Milan, was telling place, to prevent an uproar. It was during that speech that the unbaptized Ambrose was elected bishop. I suppose the people were wrong to call for his ordination, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose the friend who's house he was hiding in after this election was wrong to have given him up, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose those bishops who ordained him to the episcopate were wrong to have done so when it was just a week prior that he had been yet unbaptized.

Did St. Ambrose appoint himself bishop?

Is this really a germane question?

Yes, it is. You cited the example of St. Ambrose's election to the episcopacy as precedent to justify your self-appointed authority on this thread, so yes, my question is germane to our debate. Only if St. Ambrose appointed himself bishop is his example analogous to your defense of your authority to teach the Orthodox faith even though you're not yet Orthodox.

No, I cited St. Ambrose going to a church to give a speech during the election of the replacement for the bishop of Milan, as similar to this. No one appointed St. Ambrose to go give a speech.

But, as governor of the province of Milan, public speeches were part of his job description. Whereas it may indeed be true that St. Ambrose appointed himself to give a speech at the assembly that eventually elected him bishop, it is also true that he most likely gave the speech because he felt that his role as provincial governor placed on him the demand that he do so. Are you a civic authority as St. Ambrose was when he gave his speech? Does your role on this forum demand that you pontificate?

So the Premier of China has a right to give speeches in Orthodox contexts, but I should refrain from giving an opinion?

No, I never said you should refrain from giving your opinion. Feel free to share your opinions as much as you want, but make sure you identify those opinions you share as nothing more than your personal opinions. The only thing I ask you to stop doing is passing your personal opinions off as the teachings of the Church.

When did I pass my opinion off as the Church's? Unless I state "Orthodoxy teaches..." or "The Orthodox believe..." why should someone assume I am speaking other than as a private individual?

Someone asked if it's possible to kill in war and still be Orthodox. You said, "Absolutely," and went on to defend this assertion with your interpretation of Scripture. When I challenged you on that, you pointed out the many Orthodox warrior-saints as evidence of the "Orthodoxy" of your position. For one, I read the question as requesting a definitive Orthodox response. And for two, you said nothing in your response to indicate that you were giving anything different and made a clear attempt to defend the "Orthodoxy" of your point of view when questioned. Therefore, the clear implication is that you were passing off your personal interpretation of Scripture and your own logic as representative of the Orthodox Tradition.

I also think that your earlier aggressive pontification on this thread bears that out even more.

Alright, time to settle this once and for all. Would an Orthodox Saint be considered Orthodox?

St. Olaf was killed in battle...so up until the event of his very death he was engaged in combat. St. Olaf is an Orthodox Saint.If an Orthodox Saint is Orthodox, then someone must be able to take part in war and still be Orthodox, even if they are unable to attend confession afterwards due to an unfortunate case of death.

Or do you deny St. Olaf's Sainthood?

Are you replying to me? If so, you're barking at the wrong mailman.

I was. I'm barking because your entire argument is that since James is not a Saint or a Holy Father his opinion does not carry any weight.

If someone asks for the Church's teaching on the matter, then yes, James's opinion doesn't carry any weight, and neither does yours, and neither does mine.

Well, his opinion not only stands to reason, but it also is backed up by at least one example which I have provided.

So I put it to you, which Holy Father blocked St. Olaf's canonization?

Which Holy Father renounced the Battle of the Milvian Bridge? When God spoke to St. Constantine, you might note that He wasn't saying "put away your sword" but "in this sign you shall conquer".

You do realize that I'm not arguing that James is wrong? That I'm not advocating a point of view opposite his? Why would I do that? I've served in the military and still regard military service as an honorable occupation, and I've even argued AGAINST pacifism on other threads, citing such examples as St. Sergius of Radonezh and his blessing of soldiers to wage war against the Tatars. Do you somehow expect me to be inconsistent? Someone asked for the Church's teaching on the matter, and all James offered was his own opinion. I merely wanted him to cite sources that show that his opinion has the support of Tradition and is not just more of his pontificating.

James brought up the Old Testament. You asked which Holy Father he could quote. How about Moses? You know, a man who spoke to God in person. God didn't tell the Israelites to go into Canaan and set up a drum circle, He not only allowed them to fight their enemies, but He often aided them or dispensed battle tactics. When Samson was about to die, God gave him his strength back, not so that he could endure his torment, but so that he could KILL THOUSANDS OF THE ENEMY.

You do realize that we're no longer living in the time of the Old Testament? What weight does it really have in this discussion of Church teaching?

It still amazes me, after all this time, that people mistake PtA's often friendly (meaning, generally supportive of the premise) insistence on the use of more authoritative sources than one's own personal opinion as some sort of argument against the premise.

He may be a bit anal about sourcing, but he's not arguing with you. More often than not, he's trying to help you argue whatever you're saying better.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

It still amazes me, after all this time, that people mistake PtA's often friendly (meaning, generally supportive of the premise) insistence on the use of more authoritative sources than one's own personal opinion as some sort of argument against the premise.

He may be a bit anal about sourcing, but he's not arguing with you. More often than not, he's trying to help you argue whatever you're saying better.

Just as, sometimes, dismemberment is necessary to save life.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

Schultz, I don't think I could say it better than Shanghaiski, so I'm not going to try.

Peter, if I've mistaken your position, which it looks like I have, then I apologize. I think you came off as a nitpick when responding to James. Perhaps that was your intent. Or perhaps you were trying to support his argument as Schultz suggested. I think there would have been a better, less contradictory way to have put it.

But oh well, it looks like we have the same opinion on the matter, just coming at it from different directions, so no use arguing about it.

You're right Peter; I should do the Orthodox thing and chuck my reason at the door. The mind was given by God for the sole purpose of searching the writings of the Saints.

You do realize I never counseled you to do that? What I DID ask you to do is to stop parading your own reasoning around as though it were the Orthodox teaching on the subject, especially considering that, IIRC, you're still a catechumen or newbie Orthodox who should be investing more energy into learning what the faith teaches rather than arguing as if you already know everything. Take ownership of your reasoning and call it what it is: your own opinions.

I suppose someone should have told St. Ambrose to shut up, then, when he went to the church, where the election to replace Auxentius, Bishop of Milan, was telling place, to prevent an uproar. It was during that speech that the unbaptized Ambrose was elected bishop. I suppose the people were wrong to call for his ordination, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose the friend who's house he was hiding in after this election was wrong to have given him up, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose those bishops who ordained him to the episcopate were wrong to have done so when it was just a week prior that he had been yet unbaptized.

Did St. Ambrose appoint himself bishop?

Is this really a germane question?

Yes, it is. You cited the example of St. Ambrose's election to the episcopacy as precedent to justify your self-appointed authority on this thread, so yes, my question is germane to our debate. Only if St. Ambrose appointed himself bishop is his example analogous to your defense of your authority to teach the Orthodox faith even though you're not yet Orthodox.

No, I cited St. Ambrose going to a church to give a speech during the election of the replacement for the bishop of Milan, as similar to this. No one appointed St. Ambrose to go give a speech.

But, as governor of the province of Milan, public speeches were part of his job description. Whereas it may indeed be true that St. Ambrose appointed himself to give a speech at the assembly that eventually elected him bishop, it is also true that he most likely gave the speech because he felt that his role as provincial governor placed on him the demand that he do so. Are you a civic authority as St. Ambrose was when he gave his speech? Does your role on this forum demand that you pontificate?

So the Premier of China has a right to give speeches in Orthodox contexts, but I should refrain from giving an opinion?

No, I never said you should refrain from giving your opinion. Feel free to share your opinions as much as you want, but make sure you identify those opinions you share as nothing more than your personal opinions. The only thing I ask you to stop doing is passing your personal opinions off as the teachings of the Church.

When did I pass my opinion off as the Church's? Unless I state "Orthodoxy teaches..." or "The Orthodox believe..." why should someone assume I am speaking other than as a private individual?

Someone asked if it's possible to kill in war and still be Orthodox. You said, "Absolutely," and went on to defend this assertion with your interpretation of Scripture. When I challenged you on that, you pointed out the many Orthodox warrior-saints as evidence of the "Orthodoxy" of your position. For one, I read the question as requesting a definitive Orthodox response. And for two, you said nothing in your response to indicate that you were giving anything different and made a clear attempt to defend the "Orthodoxy" of your point of view when questioned. Therefore, the clear implication is that you were passing off your personal interpretation of Scripture and your own logic as representative of the Orthodox Tradition.

I also think that your earlier aggressive pontification on this thread bears that out even more.

As I said, unless I state "Orthodoxy teaches..." or "The Orthodox believe..." one should not assume I am speaking as anything other than a private individual. The fact that you assume people intend to speak firstly for the Church and only secondarily for themselves is your problem, not mine.

You're right Peter; I should do the Orthodox thing and chuck my reason at the door. The mind was given by God for the sole purpose of searching the writings of the Saints.

You do realize I never counseled you to do that? What I DID ask you to do is to stop parading your own reasoning around as though it were the Orthodox teaching on the subject, especially considering that, IIRC, you're still a catechumen or newbie Orthodox who should be investing more energy into learning what the faith teaches rather than arguing as if you already know everything. Take ownership of your reasoning and call it what it is: your own opinions.

I suppose someone should have told St. Ambrose to shut up, then, when he went to the church, where the election to replace Auxentius, Bishop of Milan, was telling place, to prevent an uproar. It was during that speech that the unbaptized Ambrose was elected bishop. I suppose the people were wrong to call for his ordination, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose the friend who's house he was hiding in after this election was wrong to have given him up, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose those bishops who ordained him to the episcopate were wrong to have done so when it was just a week prior that he had been yet unbaptized.

Did St. Ambrose appoint himself bishop?

Is this really a germane question?

Yes, it is. You cited the example of St. Ambrose's election to the episcopacy as precedent to justify your self-appointed authority on this thread, so yes, my question is germane to our debate. Only if St. Ambrose appointed himself bishop is his example analogous to your defense of your authority to teach the Orthodox faith even though you're not yet Orthodox.

No, I cited St. Ambrose going to a church to give a speech during the election of the replacement for the bishop of Milan, as similar to this. No one appointed St. Ambrose to go give a speech.

But, as governor of the province of Milan, public speeches were part of his job description. Whereas it may indeed be true that St. Ambrose appointed himself to give a speech at the assembly that eventually elected him bishop, it is also true that he most likely gave the speech because he felt that his role as provincial governor placed on him the demand that he do so. Are you a civic authority as St. Ambrose was when he gave his speech? Does your role on this forum demand that you pontificate?

So the Premier of China has a right to give speeches in Orthodox contexts, but I should refrain from giving an opinion?

No, I never said you should refrain from giving your opinion. Feel free to share your opinions as much as you want, but make sure you identify those opinions you share as nothing more than your personal opinions. The only thing I ask you to stop doing is passing your personal opinions off as the teachings of the Church.

When did I pass my opinion off as the Church's? Unless I state "Orthodoxy teaches..." or "The Orthodox believe..." why should someone assume I am speaking other than as a private individual?

Someone asked if it's possible to kill in war and still be Orthodox. You said, "Absolutely," and went on to defend this assertion with your interpretation of Scripture. When I challenged you on that, you pointed out the many Orthodox warrior-saints as evidence of the "Orthodoxy" of your position. For one, I read the question as requesting a definitive Orthodox response. And for two, you said nothing in your response to indicate that you were giving anything different and made a clear attempt to defend the "Orthodoxy" of your point of view when questioned. Therefore, the clear implication is that you were passing off your personal interpretation of Scripture and your own logic as representative of the Orthodox Tradition.

I also think that your earlier aggressive pontification on this thread bears that out even more.

As I said, unless I state "Orthodoxy teaches..." or "The Orthodox believe..." one should not assume I am speaking as anything other than a private individual. The fact that you assume people intend to speak firstly for the Church and only secondarily for themselves is your problem, not mine.

You don't think you could learn how to communicate better so people can understand you correctly?

You're right Peter; I should do the Orthodox thing and chuck my reason at the door. The mind was given by God for the sole purpose of searching the writings of the Saints.

You do realize I never counseled you to do that? What I DID ask you to do is to stop parading your own reasoning around as though it were the Orthodox teaching on the subject, especially considering that, IIRC, you're still a catechumen or newbie Orthodox who should be investing more energy into learning what the faith teaches rather than arguing as if you already know everything. Take ownership of your reasoning and call it what it is: your own opinions.

I suppose someone should have told St. Ambrose to shut up, then, when he went to the church, where the election to replace Auxentius, Bishop of Milan, was telling place, to prevent an uproar. It was during that speech that the unbaptized Ambrose was elected bishop. I suppose the people were wrong to call for his ordination, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose the friend who's house he was hiding in after this election was wrong to have given him up, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose those bishops who ordained him to the episcopate were wrong to have done so when it was just a week prior that he had been yet unbaptized.

Did St. Ambrose appoint himself bishop?

Is this really a germane question?

Yes, it is. You cited the example of St. Ambrose's election to the episcopacy as precedent to justify your self-appointed authority on this thread, so yes, my question is germane to our debate. Only if St. Ambrose appointed himself bishop is his example analogous to your defense of your authority to teach the Orthodox faith even though you're not yet Orthodox.

No, I cited St. Ambrose going to a church to give a speech during the election of the replacement for the bishop of Milan, as similar to this. No one appointed St. Ambrose to go give a speech.

But, as governor of the province of Milan, public speeches were part of his job description. Whereas it may indeed be true that St. Ambrose appointed himself to give a speech at the assembly that eventually elected him bishop, it is also true that he most likely gave the speech because he felt that his role as provincial governor placed on him the demand that he do so. Are you a civic authority as St. Ambrose was when he gave his speech? Does your role on this forum demand that you pontificate?

So the Premier of China has a right to give speeches in Orthodox contexts, but I should refrain from giving an opinion?

No, I never said you should refrain from giving your opinion. Feel free to share your opinions as much as you want, but make sure you identify those opinions you share as nothing more than your personal opinions. The only thing I ask you to stop doing is passing your personal opinions off as the teachings of the Church.

When did I pass my opinion off as the Church's? Unless I state "Orthodoxy teaches..." or "The Orthodox believe..." why should someone assume I am speaking other than as a private individual?

Someone asked if it's possible to kill in war and still be Orthodox. You said, "Absolutely," and went on to defend this assertion with your interpretation of Scripture. When I challenged you on that, you pointed out the many Orthodox warrior-saints as evidence of the "Orthodoxy" of your position. For one, I read the question as requesting a definitive Orthodox response. And for two, you said nothing in your response to indicate that you were giving anything different and made a clear attempt to defend the "Orthodoxy" of your point of view when questioned. Therefore, the clear implication is that you were passing off your personal interpretation of Scripture and your own logic as representative of the Orthodox Tradition.

I also think that your earlier aggressive pontification on this thread bears that out even more.

As I said, unless I state "Orthodoxy teaches..." or "The Orthodox believe..." one should not assume I am speaking as anything other than a private individual. The fact that you assume people intend to speak firstly for the Church and only secondarily for themselves is your problem, not mine.

You don't think you could learn how to communicate better so people can understand you correctly?

Right. God also ordered the Israelites to offer animal sacrifices to atone for sins, and to stone disobedient children and adulterous women; but I don't see Christians arguing that those commands are still in effect. But somehow, when it comes to justifying violence, most Christians selectively appeal to the Old Testament. I have said it before, and I will stand by it: violence is an idol that far too many Christians continue to worship.

Selam

Logged

"Whether it’s the guillotine, the hangman’s noose, or reciprocal endeavors of militaristic horror, radical evil will never be recompensed with radical punishment. The only answer, the only remedy, and the only truly effective response to radical evil is radical love."+ Gebre Menfes Kidus +http://bookstore.authorhouse.com/Products/SKU-000984270/Rebel-Song.aspx

You're right Peter; I should do the Orthodox thing and chuck my reason at the door. The mind was given by God for the sole purpose of searching the writings of the Saints.

You do realize I never counseled you to do that? What I DID ask you to do is to stop parading your own reasoning around as though it were the Orthodox teaching on the subject, especially considering that, IIRC, you're still a catechumen or newbie Orthodox who should be investing more energy into learning what the faith teaches rather than arguing as if you already know everything. Take ownership of your reasoning and call it what it is: your own opinions.

I suppose someone should have told St. Ambrose to shut up, then, when he went to the church, where the election to replace Auxentius, Bishop of Milan, was telling place, to prevent an uproar. It was during that speech that the unbaptized Ambrose was elected bishop. I suppose the people were wrong to call for his ordination, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose the friend who's house he was hiding in after this election was wrong to have given him up, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose those bishops who ordained him to the episcopate were wrong to have done so when it was just a week prior that he had been yet unbaptized.

Did St. Ambrose appoint himself bishop?

Is this really a germane question?

Yes, it is. You cited the example of St. Ambrose's election to the episcopacy as precedent to justify your self-appointed authority on this thread, so yes, my question is germane to our debate. Only if St. Ambrose appointed himself bishop is his example analogous to your defense of your authority to teach the Orthodox faith even though you're not yet Orthodox.

No, I cited St. Ambrose going to a church to give a speech during the election of the replacement for the bishop of Milan, as similar to this. No one appointed St. Ambrose to go give a speech.

But, as governor of the province of Milan, public speeches were part of his job description. Whereas it may indeed be true that St. Ambrose appointed himself to give a speech at the assembly that eventually elected him bishop, it is also true that he most likely gave the speech because he felt that his role as provincial governor placed on him the demand that he do so. Are you a civic authority as St. Ambrose was when he gave his speech? Does your role on this forum demand that you pontificate?

So the Premier of China has a right to give speeches in Orthodox contexts, but I should refrain from giving an opinion?

No, I never said you should refrain from giving your opinion. Feel free to share your opinions as much as you want, but make sure you identify those opinions you share as nothing more than your personal opinions. The only thing I ask you to stop doing is passing your personal opinions off as the teachings of the Church.

When did I pass my opinion off as the Church's? Unless I state "Orthodoxy teaches..." or "The Orthodox believe..." why should someone assume I am speaking other than as a private individual?

Someone asked if it's possible to kill in war and still be Orthodox. You said, "Absolutely," and went on to defend this assertion with your interpretation of Scripture. When I challenged you on that, you pointed out the many Orthodox warrior-saints as evidence of the "Orthodoxy" of your position. For one, I read the question as requesting a definitive Orthodox response. And for two, you said nothing in your response to indicate that you were giving anything different and made a clear attempt to defend the "Orthodoxy" of your point of view when questioned. Therefore, the clear implication is that you were passing off your personal interpretation of Scripture and your own logic as representative of the Orthodox Tradition.

I also think that your earlier aggressive pontification on this thread bears that out even more.

As I said, unless I state "Orthodoxy teaches..." or "The Orthodox believe..." one should not assume I am speaking as anything other than a private individual. The fact that you assume people intend to speak firstly for the Church and only secondarily for themselves is your problem, not mine.

You don't think you could learn how to communicate better so people can understand you correctly?

You're right Peter; I should do the Orthodox thing and chuck my reason at the door. The mind was given by God for the sole purpose of searching the writings of the Saints.

You do realize I never counseled you to do that? What I DID ask you to do is to stop parading your own reasoning around as though it were the Orthodox teaching on the subject, especially considering that, IIRC, you're still a catechumen or newbie Orthodox who should be investing more energy into learning what the faith teaches rather than arguing as if you already know everything. Take ownership of your reasoning and call it what it is: your own opinions.

I suppose someone should have told St. Ambrose to shut up, then, when he went to the church, where the election to replace Auxentius, Bishop of Milan, was telling place, to prevent an uproar. It was during that speech that the unbaptized Ambrose was elected bishop. I suppose the people were wrong to call for his ordination, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose the friend who's house he was hiding in after this election was wrong to have given him up, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose those bishops who ordained him to the episcopate were wrong to have done so when it was just a week prior that he had been yet unbaptized.

Did St. Ambrose appoint himself bishop?

Is this really a germane question?

Yes, it is. You cited the example of St. Ambrose's election to the episcopacy as precedent to justify your self-appointed authority on this thread, so yes, my question is germane to our debate. Only if St. Ambrose appointed himself bishop is his example analogous to your defense of your authority to teach the Orthodox faith even though you're not yet Orthodox.

No, I cited St. Ambrose going to a church to give a speech during the election of the replacement for the bishop of Milan, as similar to this. No one appointed St. Ambrose to go give a speech.

But, as governor of the province of Milan, public speeches were part of his job description. Whereas it may indeed be true that St. Ambrose appointed himself to give a speech at the assembly that eventually elected him bishop, it is also true that he most likely gave the speech because he felt that his role as provincial governor placed on him the demand that he do so. Are you a civic authority as St. Ambrose was when he gave his speech? Does your role on this forum demand that you pontificate?

So the Premier of China has a right to give speeches in Orthodox contexts, but I should refrain from giving an opinion?

No, I never said you should refrain from giving your opinion. Feel free to share your opinions as much as you want, but make sure you identify those opinions you share as nothing more than your personal opinions. The only thing I ask you to stop doing is passing your personal opinions off as the teachings of the Church.

When did I pass my opinion off as the Church's? Unless I state "Orthodoxy teaches..." or "The Orthodox believe..." why should someone assume I am speaking other than as a private individual?

Someone asked if it's possible to kill in war and still be Orthodox. You said, "Absolutely," and went on to defend this assertion with your interpretation of Scripture. When I challenged you on that, you pointed out the many Orthodox warrior-saints as evidence of the "Orthodoxy" of your position. For one, I read the question as requesting a definitive Orthodox response. And for two, you said nothing in your response to indicate that you were giving anything different and made a clear attempt to defend the "Orthodoxy" of your point of view when questioned. Therefore, the clear implication is that you were passing off your personal interpretation of Scripture and your own logic as representative of the Orthodox Tradition.

I also think that your earlier aggressive pontification on this thread bears that out even more.

As I said, unless I state "Orthodoxy teaches..." or "The Orthodox believe..." one should not assume I am speaking as anything other than a private individual. The fact that you assume people intend to speak firstly for the Church and only secondarily for themselves is your problem, not mine.

You don't think you could learn how to communicate better so people can understand you correctly?

Why assume the communication problem is with the other person?

You assumed the communication problem was with me, so why don't you ask yourself that question?

The simple fact is this: In any medium of communication, especially in this text-only medium we call the Internet, what you don't state explicitly, you leave open to interpretation. And what you leave open to interpretation, you leave open to being misconstrued. Therefore, if you want others to believe correctly that you're merely speaking your opinion, you really have to state that explicitly. It's not safe to assume that it's obvious and that those who don't see it are somehow blinded by their own assumptions.

You're right Peter; I should do the Orthodox thing and chuck my reason at the door. The mind was given by God for the sole purpose of searching the writings of the Saints.

You do realize I never counseled you to do that? What I DID ask you to do is to stop parading your own reasoning around as though it were the Orthodox teaching on the subject, especially considering that, IIRC, you're still a catechumen or newbie Orthodox who should be investing more energy into learning what the faith teaches rather than arguing as if you already know everything. Take ownership of your reasoning and call it what it is: your own opinions.

I suppose someone should have told St. Ambrose to shut up, then, when he went to the church, where the election to replace Auxentius, Bishop of Milan, was telling place, to prevent an uproar. It was during that speech that the unbaptized Ambrose was elected bishop. I suppose the people were wrong to call for his ordination, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose the friend who's house he was hiding in after this election was wrong to have given him up, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose those bishops who ordained him to the episcopate were wrong to have done so when it was just a week prior that he had been yet unbaptized.

Did St. Ambrose appoint himself bishop?

Is this really a germane question?

Yes, it is. You cited the example of St. Ambrose's election to the episcopacy as precedent to justify your self-appointed authority on this thread, so yes, my question is germane to our debate. Only if St. Ambrose appointed himself bishop is his example analogous to your defense of your authority to teach the Orthodox faith even though you're not yet Orthodox.

No, I cited St. Ambrose going to a church to give a speech during the election of the replacement for the bishop of Milan, as similar to this. No one appointed St. Ambrose to go give a speech.

But, as governor of the province of Milan, public speeches were part of his job description. Whereas it may indeed be true that St. Ambrose appointed himself to give a speech at the assembly that eventually elected him bishop, it is also true that he most likely gave the speech because he felt that his role as provincial governor placed on him the demand that he do so. Are you a civic authority as St. Ambrose was when he gave his speech? Does your role on this forum demand that you pontificate?

So the Premier of China has a right to give speeches in Orthodox contexts, but I should refrain from giving an opinion?

No, I never said you should refrain from giving your opinion. Feel free to share your opinions as much as you want, but make sure you identify those opinions you share as nothing more than your personal opinions. The only thing I ask you to stop doing is passing your personal opinions off as the teachings of the Church.

When did I pass my opinion off as the Church's? Unless I state "Orthodoxy teaches..." or "The Orthodox believe..." why should someone assume I am speaking other than as a private individual?

Someone asked if it's possible to kill in war and still be Orthodox. You said, "Absolutely," and went on to defend this assertion with your interpretation of Scripture. When I challenged you on that, you pointed out the many Orthodox warrior-saints as evidence of the "Orthodoxy" of your position. For one, I read the question as requesting a definitive Orthodox response. And for two, you said nothing in your response to indicate that you were giving anything different and made a clear attempt to defend the "Orthodoxy" of your point of view when questioned. Therefore, the clear implication is that you were passing off your personal interpretation of Scripture and your own logic as representative of the Orthodox Tradition.

I also think that your earlier aggressive pontification on this thread bears that out even more.

As I said, unless I state "Orthodoxy teaches..." or "The Orthodox believe..." one should not assume I am speaking as anything other than a private individual. The fact that you assume people intend to speak firstly for the Church and only secondarily for themselves is your problem, not mine.

You don't think you could learn how to communicate better so people can understand you correctly?

Why assume the communication problem is with the other person?

You assumed the communication problem was with me, so why don't you ask yourself that question?

The simple fact is this: In any medium of communication, especially in this text-only medium we call the Internet, what you don't state explicitly, you leave open to interpretation. And what you leave open to interpretation, you leave open to being misconstrued. Therefore, if you want others to believe correctly that you're merely speaking your opinion, you really have to state that explicitly. It's not safe to assume that it's obvious and that those who don't see it are somehow blinded by their own assumptions.

I could just as easily say that people will normally assume I'm writing only my opinion, unless explicitly stated otherwise.

You're right Peter; I should do the Orthodox thing and chuck my reason at the door. The mind was given by God for the sole purpose of searching the writings of the Saints.

You do realize I never counseled you to do that? What I DID ask you to do is to stop parading your own reasoning around as though it were the Orthodox teaching on the subject, especially considering that, IIRC, you're still a catechumen or newbie Orthodox who should be investing more energy into learning what the faith teaches rather than arguing as if you already know everything. Take ownership of your reasoning and call it what it is: your own opinions.

I suppose someone should have told St. Ambrose to shut up, then, when he went to the church, where the election to replace Auxentius, Bishop of Milan, was telling place, to prevent an uproar. It was during that speech that the unbaptized Ambrose was elected bishop. I suppose the people were wrong to call for his ordination, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose the friend who's house he was hiding in after this election was wrong to have given him up, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose those bishops who ordained him to the episcopate were wrong to have done so when it was just a week prior that he had been yet unbaptized.

Did St. Ambrose appoint himself bishop?

Is this really a germane question?

Yes, it is. You cited the example of St. Ambrose's election to the episcopacy as precedent to justify your self-appointed authority on this thread, so yes, my question is germane to our debate. Only if St. Ambrose appointed himself bishop is his example analogous to your defense of your authority to teach the Orthodox faith even though you're not yet Orthodox.

No, I cited St. Ambrose going to a church to give a speech during the election of the replacement for the bishop of Milan, as similar to this. No one appointed St. Ambrose to go give a speech.

But, as governor of the province of Milan, public speeches were part of his job description. Whereas it may indeed be true that St. Ambrose appointed himself to give a speech at the assembly that eventually elected him bishop, it is also true that he most likely gave the speech because he felt that his role as provincial governor placed on him the demand that he do so. Are you a civic authority as St. Ambrose was when he gave his speech? Does your role on this forum demand that you pontificate?

So the Premier of China has a right to give speeches in Orthodox contexts, but I should refrain from giving an opinion?

No, I never said you should refrain from giving your opinion. Feel free to share your opinions as much as you want, but make sure you identify those opinions you share as nothing more than your personal opinions. The only thing I ask you to stop doing is passing your personal opinions off as the teachings of the Church.

When did I pass my opinion off as the Church's? Unless I state "Orthodoxy teaches..." or "The Orthodox believe..." why should someone assume I am speaking other than as a private individual?

Someone asked if it's possible to kill in war and still be Orthodox. You said, "Absolutely," and went on to defend this assertion with your interpretation of Scripture. When I challenged you on that, you pointed out the many Orthodox warrior-saints as evidence of the "Orthodoxy" of your position. For one, I read the question as requesting a definitive Orthodox response. And for two, you said nothing in your response to indicate that you were giving anything different and made a clear attempt to defend the "Orthodoxy" of your point of view when questioned. Therefore, the clear implication is that you were passing off your personal interpretation of Scripture and your own logic as representative of the Orthodox Tradition.

I also think that your earlier aggressive pontification on this thread bears that out even more.

As I said, unless I state "Orthodoxy teaches..." or "The Orthodox believe..." one should not assume I am speaking as anything other than a private individual. The fact that you assume people intend to speak firstly for the Church and only secondarily for themselves is your problem, not mine.

You don't think you could learn how to communicate better so people can understand you correctly?

Why assume the communication problem is with the other person?

You assumed the communication problem was with me, so why don't you ask yourself that question?

The simple fact is this: In any medium of communication, especially in this text-only medium we call the Internet, what you don't state explicitly, you leave open to interpretation. And what you leave open to interpretation, you leave open to being misconstrued. Therefore, if you want others to believe correctly that you're merely speaking your opinion, you really have to state that explicitly. It's not safe to assume that it's obvious and that those who don't see it are somehow blinded by their own assumptions.

I could just as easily say that people will normally assume I'm writing only my opinion, unless explicitly stated otherwise.

I suppose you can just as easily say anything you want, but the biggest determining factor, which I failed to mention earlier, is context. Context, more than anything else, will determine how your post is read. If the context of your post implies that you're attempting to represent a definitive authority, then you need to state explicitly that you're merely sharing your opinion. If the context of your post implies that you're merely sharing your opinion, then you need to state explicitly that you're representing a definitive authority. Considering this, a person really needs to be sensitive to how the context of his post will determine how others understand it. It's not safe to assUme anything.

Are there any official teachings about this? I ask because I'm considering serving a contract in the Navy to help pay for college.

In addition to our tradition of military saints including the likes of Ss George, Demetrios, Theodore, Maurice, Martin (who actually left the military to better serve Christ but we get the word "chaplain" from the priest who would the relic of his cape into battle), the fact that we have Orthodox chaplains (see the link I posted earlier for an example of one), and the prayers and blessings that we have for Orthodox Christians in military service, I found a couple of passages in a couple Orthodox catechisms that may be of some use.

Murder; that is, taking away the life of our neighbor in any manner whatever.

575. Is it in all cases murder, and against this commandment, to kill?

No. It is not murder, nor against this commandment, when life is taken in the execution of duty; as, when a criminal is punished with death, by just judgment; nor, again, when an enemy is killed in war, in defense of our sovereign and country.

One of the clearest and most self-denying struggles of service to one's homeland is to die for the nation. A Christian soldier is a defender of the homeland, and clearly fulfils Christ's precept, "there is no greater love than to lay down one's life for ones brethren."

War in itself is absolutely evil, an extremely sad phenomenon and deeply contrary to the very essence of Christianity. Words cannot express how joyous it would be if people ceased to war with one another and peace reigned on earth. Sad reality speaks quite otherwise, however. Only some dreamers far removed from reality and some narrowly one-sided sectarians can pretend that war can be omitted from real life.

It is quite correct to point out that war is a violation of the commandment, "Do not kill." No one will argue against that. Still, we see from the Holy Scripture that in that very same Old Testament time when this commandment was given, the Israelite people fought on command from God, and defeated its enemies with God's help. Consequently, the meaning of the commandment, "Do not kill," does not refer unconditionally to every act of removing a person's life. This commandment forbids killing for revenge, in anger, by personal decision or act of will. When our Savior explained the deep meaning of this commandment, He pointed out that it forbids not only actual killing, but also an un-Christian, vain anger.

Nevertheless, in a conversation with the apostles about the last days, the Lord told them, "You will hear of wars and reports of wars. See that you are not distressed: for all this must be." With these words, the Lord refutes all statements that war is avoidable.

True, we have already examined the fact that war is a negative phenomenon. Yet, it will exist, sometimes as the sole defense of truth and human rights, or against seizure, brutal invasion and violence. Only such wars of defense are recognized in Christian teaching. In fact, we hear of the following event in the life of St. Athanasios of the Holy Mountain.

Prince Tornikian of Georgia, an eminent commander of the Byzantine armies, was received into monasticism at St Athanasios' monastery. During the time of the Persian invasion, Empress Zoe recalled Tornikian to command the armies. Tornikian flatly refused on the grounds that he was a monk. But St. Athanasios said to him, "We are all children of our homeland and we are obligated to defend it. Our obligation is to guard the homeland from enemies by prayers. Nevertheless, if God deems it expedient to use both our hands and our heart for the common weal, we must submit completely ... If you do not obey the ruler, you will have to answer for the blood of your compatriots whom you did not wish to save." Tornikian submitted, defeated the enemy and rescued the homeland from danger.

In a conversation with Mohammedans, about war, St. Cyril the Enlightener of the Slavs said, "We meekly endure personal offenses; but as a society, we defend each other, laying down our lives for our neighbors..."

One can, of course, sin and sin greatly while participating in war. This happens when one participates in war with a feeling of personal hatred, vengeance, or vainglory and with proud personal aims. On the contrary, the less the soldier thinks about himself, and the more he is ready to lay down his life for others, the closer he approaches to the martyr's crown.

And also this commentary on Luke 3:14 might be useful starting around 12:08.And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.

Are there any official teachings about this? I ask because I'm considering serving a contract in the Navy to help pay for college.

In addition to our tradition of military saints including the likes of Ss George, Demetrios, Theodore, Maurice, Martin (who actually left the military to better serve Christ but we get the word "chaplain" from the priest who would the relic of his cape into battle), the fact that we have Orthodox chaplains (see the link I posted earlier for an example of one), and the prayers and blessings that we have for Orthodox Christians in military service, I found a couple of passages in a couple Orthodox catechisms that may be of some use.

Murder; that is, taking away the life of our neighbor in any manner whatever.

575. Is it in all cases murder, and against this commandment, to kill?

No. It is not murder, nor against this commandment, when life is taken in the execution of duty; as, when a criminal is punished with death, by just judgment; nor, again, when an enemy is killed in war, in defense of our sovereign and country.

One of the clearest and most self-denying struggles of service to one's homeland is to die for the nation. A Christian soldier is a defender of the homeland, and clearly fulfils Christ's precept, "there is no greater love than to lay down one's life for ones brethren."

War in itself is absolutely evil, an extremely sad phenomenon and deeply contrary to the very essence of Christianity. Words cannot express how joyous it would be if people ceased to war with one another and peace reigned on earth. Sad reality speaks quite otherwise, however. Only some dreamers far removed from reality and some narrowly one-sided sectarians can pretend that war can be omitted from real life.

It is quite correct to point out that war is a violation of the commandment, "Do not kill." No one will argue against that. Still, we see from the Holy Scripture that in that very same Old Testament time when this commandment was given, the Israelite people fought on command from God, and defeated its enemies with God's help. Consequently, the meaning of the commandment, "Do not kill," does not refer unconditionally to every act of removing a person's life. This commandment forbids killing for revenge, in anger, by personal decision or act of will. When our Savior explained the deep meaning of this commandment, He pointed out that it forbids not only actual killing, but also an un-Christian, vain anger.

Nevertheless, in a conversation with the apostles about the last days, the Lord told them, "You will hear of wars and reports of wars. See that you are not distressed: for all this must be." With these words, the Lord refutes all statements that war is avoidable.

True, we have already examined the fact that war is a negative phenomenon. Yet, it will exist, sometimes as the sole defense of truth and human rights, or against seizure, brutal invasion and violence. Only such wars of defense are recognized in Christian teaching. In fact, we hear of the following event in the life of St. Athanasios of the Holy Mountain.

Prince Tornikian of Georgia, an eminent commander of the Byzantine armies, was received into monasticism at St Athanasios' monastery. During the time of the Persian invasion, Empress Zoe recalled Tornikian to command the armies. Tornikian flatly refused on the grounds that he was a monk. But St. Athanasios said to him, "We are all children of our homeland and we are obligated to defend it. Our obligation is to guard the homeland from enemies by prayers. Nevertheless, if God deems it expedient to use both our hands and our heart for the common weal, we must submit completely ... If you do not obey the ruler, you will have to answer for the blood of your compatriots whom you did not wish to save." Tornikian submitted, defeated the enemy and rescued the homeland from danger.

In a conversation with Mohammedans, about war, St. Cyril the Enlightener of the Slavs said, "We meekly endure personal offenses; but as a society, we defend each other, laying down our lives for our neighbors..."

One can, of course, sin and sin greatly while participating in war. This happens when one participates in war with a feeling of personal hatred, vengeance, or vainglory and with proud personal aims. On the contrary, the less the soldier thinks about himself, and the more he is ready to lay down his life for others, the closer he approaches to the martyr's crown.

And also this commentary on Luke 3:14 might be useful starting around 12:08.And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.

And to JamesR, the Navy? Really? Why would anybody want to be stuffed in a nuclear powered tin can for months at a time? Join the Army instead!

More of an exploration guy; the seas have a special draw on me and the thought of maybe someday getting to fire anti-air guns and bombs at other ships and planes like in World War II still seduces me. I'm hoping that sometime in the near future, the Navy will see some frontline action again like in World War II instead of just being transport now.

Are there any official teachings about this? I ask because I'm considering serving a contract in the Navy to help pay for college.

St. John the Baptist has advice to soldiers in the Gospels--something about not extorting things from people and being content with their wages.

I don't see how anyone could think Orthodoxy is against the armed forces. To protect life life is honorable, and to lay down one's life for one's friends is the highest form of love, as our Lord says. There are a great many Orthodox soldiers today and in the past. Many, like Elder Paisios, found military service even in times of war to be spiritually beneficial for themselves in that they had the opportunity to exercise self-sacrifice and be an example of goodness to their fellow soldiers. I'm really not sure why this thread is so long.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

Are there any official teachings about this? I ask because I'm considering serving a contract in the Navy to help pay for college.

In addition to our tradition of military saints including the likes of Ss George, Demetrios, Theodore, Maurice, Martin (who actually left the military to better serve Christ but we get the word "chaplain" from the priest who would the relic of his cape into battle), the fact that we have Orthodox chaplains (see the link I posted earlier for an example of one), and the prayers and blessings that we have for Orthodox Christians in military service, I found a couple of passages in a couple Orthodox catechisms that may be of some use.

Murder; that is, taking away the life of our neighbor in any manner whatever.

575. Is it in all cases murder, and against this commandment, to kill?

No. It is not murder, nor against this commandment, when life is taken in the execution of duty; as, when a criminal is punished with death, by just judgment; nor, again, when an enemy is killed in war, in defense of our sovereign and country.

One of the clearest and most self-denying struggles of service to one's homeland is to die for the nation. A Christian soldier is a defender of the homeland, and clearly fulfils Christ's precept, "there is no greater love than to lay down one's life for ones brethren."

War in itself is absolutely evil, an extremely sad phenomenon and deeply contrary to the very essence of Christianity. Words cannot express how joyous it would be if people ceased to war with one another and peace reigned on earth. Sad reality speaks quite otherwise, however. Only some dreamers far removed from reality and some narrowly one-sided sectarians can pretend that war can be omitted from real life.

It is quite correct to point out that war is a violation of the commandment, "Do not kill." No one will argue against that. Still, we see from the Holy Scripture that in that very same Old Testament time when this commandment was given, the Israelite people fought on command from God, and defeated its enemies with God's help. Consequently, the meaning of the commandment, "Do not kill," does not refer unconditionally to every act of removing a person's life. This commandment forbids killing for revenge, in anger, by personal decision or act of will. When our Savior explained the deep meaning of this commandment, He pointed out that it forbids not only actual killing, but also an un-Christian, vain anger.

Nevertheless, in a conversation with the apostles about the last days, the Lord told them, "You will hear of wars and reports of wars. See that you are not distressed: for all this must be." With these words, the Lord refutes all statements that war is avoidable.

True, we have already examined the fact that war is a negative phenomenon. Yet, it will exist, sometimes as the sole defense of truth and human rights, or against seizure, brutal invasion and violence. Only such wars of defense are recognized in Christian teaching. In fact, we hear of the following event in the life of St. Athanasios of the Holy Mountain.

Prince Tornikian of Georgia, an eminent commander of the Byzantine armies, was received into monasticism at St Athanasios' monastery. During the time of the Persian invasion, Empress Zoe recalled Tornikian to command the armies. Tornikian flatly refused on the grounds that he was a monk. But St. Athanasios said to him, "We are all children of our homeland and we are obligated to defend it. Our obligation is to guard the homeland from enemies by prayers. Nevertheless, if God deems it expedient to use both our hands and our heart for the common weal, we must submit completely ... If you do not obey the ruler, you will have to answer for the blood of your compatriots whom you did not wish to save." Tornikian submitted, defeated the enemy and rescued the homeland from danger.

In a conversation with Mohammedans, about war, St. Cyril the Enlightener of the Slavs said, "We meekly endure personal offenses; but as a society, we defend each other, laying down our lives for our neighbors..."

One can, of course, sin and sin greatly while participating in war. This happens when one participates in war with a feeling of personal hatred, vengeance, or vainglory and with proud personal aims. On the contrary, the less the soldier thinks about himself, and the more he is ready to lay down his life for others, the closer he approaches to the martyr's crown.

And also this commentary on Luke 3:14 might be useful starting around 12:08.And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.

Thanks for this post. Fr. David's podcast on AFR is very interesting, although unfortunately I only was able to read the two transcripts (I can't listen to podcasts, if I try to multitask I don't absorb anything and if I do nothing else I feel way too unproductive).

Logged

Cursed be he that doeth the work of the LORD deceitfully, and cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from blood.

Are there any official teachings about this? I ask because I'm considering serving a contract in the Navy to help pay for college.

In addition to our tradition of military saints including the likes of Ss George, Demetrios, Theodore, Maurice, Martin (who actually left the military to better serve Christ but we get the word "chaplain" from the priest who would the relic of his cape into battle), the fact that we have Orthodox chaplains (see the link I posted earlier for an example of one), and the prayers and blessings that we have for Orthodox Christians in military service, I found a couple of passages in a couple Orthodox catechisms that may be of some use.

Murder; that is, taking away the life of our neighbor in any manner whatever.

575. Is it in all cases murder, and against this commandment, to kill?

No. It is not murder, nor against this commandment, when life is taken in the execution of duty; as, when a criminal is punished with death, by just judgment; nor, again, when an enemy is killed in war, in defense of our sovereign and country.

One of the clearest and most self-denying struggles of service to one's homeland is to die for the nation. A Christian soldier is a defender of the homeland, and clearly fulfils Christ's precept, "there is no greater love than to lay down one's life for ones brethren."

War in itself is absolutely evil, an extremely sad phenomenon and deeply contrary to the very essence of Christianity. Words cannot express how joyous it would be if people ceased to war with one another and peace reigned on earth. Sad reality speaks quite otherwise, however. Only some dreamers far removed from reality and some narrowly one-sided sectarians can pretend that war can be omitted from real life.

It is quite correct to point out that war is a violation of the commandment, "Do not kill." No one will argue against that. Still, we see from the Holy Scripture that in that very same Old Testament time when this commandment was given, the Israelite people fought on command from God, and defeated its enemies with God's help. Consequently, the meaning of the commandment, "Do not kill," does not refer unconditionally to every act of removing a person's life. This commandment forbids killing for revenge, in anger, by personal decision or act of will. When our Savior explained the deep meaning of this commandment, He pointed out that it forbids not only actual killing, but also an un-Christian, vain anger.

Nevertheless, in a conversation with the apostles about the last days, the Lord told them, "You will hear of wars and reports of wars. See that you are not distressed: for all this must be." With these words, the Lord refutes all statements that war is avoidable.

True, we have already examined the fact that war is a negative phenomenon. Yet, it will exist, sometimes as the sole defense of truth and human rights, or against seizure, brutal invasion and violence. Only such wars of defense are recognized in Christian teaching. In fact, we hear of the following event in the life of St. Athanasios of the Holy Mountain.

Prince Tornikian of Georgia, an eminent commander of the Byzantine armies, was received into monasticism at St Athanasios' monastery. During the time of the Persian invasion, Empress Zoe recalled Tornikian to command the armies. Tornikian flatly refused on the grounds that he was a monk. But St. Athanasios said to him, "We are all children of our homeland and we are obligated to defend it. Our obligation is to guard the homeland from enemies by prayers. Nevertheless, if God deems it expedient to use both our hands and our heart for the common weal, we must submit completely ... If you do not obey the ruler, you will have to answer for the blood of your compatriots whom you did not wish to save." Tornikian submitted, defeated the enemy and rescued the homeland from danger.

In a conversation with Mohammedans, about war, St. Cyril the Enlightener of the Slavs said, "We meekly endure personal offenses; but as a society, we defend each other, laying down our lives for our neighbors..."

One can, of course, sin and sin greatly while participating in war. This happens when one participates in war with a feeling of personal hatred, vengeance, or vainglory and with proud personal aims. On the contrary, the less the soldier thinks about himself, and the more he is ready to lay down his life for others, the closer he approaches to the martyr's crown.

And also this commentary on Luke 3:14 might be useful starting around 12:08.And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.

St. Demetrius did not leave the army. I don't think St. George did either. Or St. Maurice for that matter. They left the emperor's army when they were martyred. (Wait, maybe the parenthetical reference was just for St. Martin. Okay.)

« Last Edit: April 18, 2012, 04:38:32 PM by Shanghaiski »

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.